Transcript
[0:00] It's entertainment law update episode number 150 for October 26 2022.
[0:07] Music.
[0:15] Welcome to another episode of Entertainment Law update from Los Angeles California I'm Gordon Firemark,
And from the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex I'm Tamara Bennett. And thank you so much for being here with us today. This is our podcast about entertainment long.
Each month we pull together a round up of legal and business news stories. And share our opinions and commentary and analysis. About them. What's new with you? Tamara?
Oh gosh Gordon well I am just home for about 48 hours after 21 days on the road so,
So, I'm glad to be home. Hopefully,
Trip to see our son Brock who moved to Austria.
[1:02] Music.
[1:09] New Jersey. There was lots of beautiful things in between.
So when when Brock made the decision he was taking a job in Australia we'll tapped on a few days to the beginning of our trip and,
9 months hey
Not for the whole time but for a big chunk of that time so big shout out to Angela whoo hoo,
Back to earth I will say the.
So by the time we got back,
You don't you have a little bit of vacation lag but you don't really have the jet lag.
[2:14] So so it allowed them to you know they really did get 25 hours a day in on their continue
So anyway that's what we've been up to. We have been from.
[2:37] Where we went Salsburg Austria.
Then Barcelona around the coast of Spain and Portugal and then across the Atlantic. So, it has been an adventure.
Quiet couple of months now and that that's okay with me really.
My husband not so much but he was. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we are celebrating a milestone with this show.
Episodes that we have done. 150 monthly episodes. That's really something.
[3:31] I actually doing this on a video as well.
Which
Even though I have a media degree.
Giving our.
[4:08] Register of copyrights passed away earlier this month.
[4:14] And we just wanted to say a few words. I believe you said you met her.
I just had the,
Entertainment law institute state bar of Texas sports and entertainment law section.
She was so delightful. I have to tell you, she really took the time to speak with,
You know, all of the attorneys that were present, you know, we.
[4:58] Bread together at a luncheon and a dinner
Make her acquaintance into actually, you know, see all the things she's done throughout her career. I posted on my Facebook, she was such an amazing,
And a mutual friend of ours Steve Winersky who's a long time friend colleague attorney,
You're correct. So,
She was really one of us and that was a great thing for me to see as a as a young girl.
Even though I guess I've been practicing for about 10 years at that point but still felt like I was a young lawyer. Yeah, she was very
You know, remember seeing her on panels and discussions and and always, you know, full of advice, not just information about what the office was doing but she would actually sort of,
Give tips and advice. Yeah. You know.
[6:09] Music.
[6:17] She will. So, so, I'm glad we could honor her and she will be missed. Yeah
Probably heard of him as stuttering john from the Howard Stern show he was on the show from 1988 until 2004
He left the show stern entered into that 500 1 million dollars agreement with serious sex
Episodes of the show as well as
Melinda Zapeers in many of these archive episodes excerpts of which serious XM uses in its online and on air advertisements.
[7:11] To promote the stern shelp.
Write a publicity statue,
We're being exploited for serious XM's commercial game without his permission. So,
A breach of this right of publicity under California law.
Which was granted,
That serious exams intended audience could reasonably construe advertisements,
For the Howard Stern show featuring him,
He they also said that Melanda's publicity writes claims were effectively claims for.
[8:22] And therefore we're preempted.
And.
Identifying characteristics.
The elements are a knowing use
By the defendant and a direct connection between the use and the commercial purpose. So,
And I'm guessing so it's a New York case but we're talking California law
Because I guess he's a California resident and and therefore the injury hits him there.
[9:25] Music.
[9:46] And the second the general scope or equivalence requirement. So,
When the planets claim,
Falling within the ambit of one of the categories of copper edible works and so on. So, no indication from Melinda's allegations.
A personal endorsement with which the plane have no relevant. So, basically saying, hey, he was part of the show. It's, you know, sort of reasonable. The the challenge advertisements are the same for the same show,
Not a separate product that he never had anything to do it,
This is sort of like an advertisement for the broadcast of an upcoming football game. By the NFL.
Neither of which is considered a personal endorsement by the player of the game or the channel or any of that,
For that to be satisfied the state law claim must involve acts of reproduction add uptation performance distribution display.
[11:01] Music.
[11:11] Violations.
[11:17] Music.
[11:26] We change the nature of a similar state law claim so that it's qualitatively different from a copyright infringement plan.
[11:35] Music.
[11:43] What he seeks to protect,
Is right of publicity claims are simply attempts to prevent serious XM from rebroadcasting,
Ultimately his righter publicity claims then under both common law and statue law are aimed at stopping that reproduction of copyrightable works that embody his identity. So.
So but look these red publicity claims in this lawsuit are based on works that come within the subject matter. Copyright under section 102 A. Of the copyright act and.
The lower court was right.
Yeah.
Yeah when it was dismissed,
But I think it's right. I I think there is a preemption issue here. It is.
The copyright claim.
Sound recording or video, audio visual work.
[13:03] I just don't know that there is a right publicity.
[13:16] Chapped that he's not getting paid again. I think that's it. You know, and I don't know if there were other code talent on the program that got paid.
Or is it just him? I know there were other
Yeah I sort of understand his being chapped as you describe it and and sort of justifiably said but the right of publicity said just in this case look he he agreed to be in these copyrighted.
Episodes.
You can't stop them from using that stuff that he.
He doesn't get it.
Categorical statement that copyright always preempts the right of publicity,
It was in this particular fact scenario where he was willingly appearing in the.
And that it was being now repurposed for marketing purposes but not for something separate and distinct from the original show.
[14:45] Is that ring trophy? Is that sort of.
Let me get your take under California off okay.
And they are recorded.
[15:21] Do you think both parents need to consent for that their image to be used.
[15:28] Under California law.
Under California law,
You get the kid. Well, if it's a long run in campaign, you're gonna get, you're gonna go to the trouble of getting this court approval.
The pragmatic approach to it.
Yeah cuz you don't want parents coming in and claiming.
[16:21] Music.
[16:32] Parents.
Hey Facebook.
I assume that as part of the divorce degree.
Agreement.
[17:07] And so would you specify and be equal
But not mutual.
[17:28] Other side of the deal I wouldn't get permission from both parents before I took off on this relying on permission from wine
Yeah, in practice, I think that's what I would do is, is make sure I have both of them. So, there's no later.
Argument from one I didn't give consent and I don't agree and you know ultimately that's a family law matter the the disagreement over whether they should have consented but
You don't wanna be stuck in the middle of that.
When you're dealing with a minor child, obviously, anyway, so sorry, just know that out there.
But presented as I have that. So presented as a hypothetical.
Well, we're gonna talk about a couple of different cases involving tattoos that have been. We talked about these before but we've got some resolution.
[18:38] Catherine Alexander is the tattoo artist in in the first of our cases we're gonna talk about who has received an award from a jury in Illinois,
Against take two interactive the jury decided that the use of the tattoos,
On wrestler
And got a couple of registration just before filing the the lawsuit against take two take two included orton as a wrestler in its WWE twoK series of games.
Under the solid oak case which we've talked about,
Not too long ago. This type of use was deemed to be permissible in a summary judgment motion as it diminimous use. And implied license fair use in those.
[19:28] Music.
[19:45] Oracle the fair use case from a couple years ago.
So the judge ultimately should have been responsible for determining whether or not fair you supplied it should have been noted that should be.
[19:58] Music.
[20:14] Buy the jury.
[20:17] Music.
[20:26] $3750,
So. You gotta wonder how much did this litigation cost?
I don't know how much a tattoo cost. Surely, a cut tattoo doesn't cost that much but that was some number that the plain of proved up.
[20:47] Well, yeah. It's probably a number that the defense proved up if you find it infringement, then, you know, it really all comes to this much, right?
Yeah.
Or made a claim as to,
To the jury instructions to preserve that for appeal.
And it's unclear to me if that was done because,
Seems like one or below that plane of council would have made an objection.
Right right well yeah and the defense would be,
It sounds like the judge may have been a little just perturbed at the case even being in his car.
Minimum.
[22:10] Copyright.
Yeah but with the timing of the registration of the copper there's the statue damages would have been,
Available.
Objections in those kinds of things but.
[22:40] Yeah certainly sounds like a very limited set of Julian instructions was given.
And there wasn't any appeal of that earlier summary judgment. That we know of. So,
Inclination or the wanna devote the resources to an appeal.
The game company has an interest in getting an outcome. That they can live with this is not that.
Hey end this I don't think this is anything that rises to the level of a
But we clearly have other cases where they're saying using the tattoos is part of their persona and it's a very use it's a diminish
Diminimus use. Yeah. Yeah. Hi. Yeah, I mean, there's that that called oak.
[23:40] Sorry I'm looking down your,
And and we may get something.
[23:56] Music.
[24:08] We have another tattoo case which is.
Wow interesting facts okay.
Rafi.
Was making a cover for her mixtape,
Other person that was in the cover on the mixtape.
The other person that was in the cover on the mix tape and I'm guessing let's see.
Period intimate action happening.
I'm gonna be more specific. It looked like he was giving her earl sex.
Up.
[25:17] Find some tattoos she likes better has them photoshopped onto the back of the guy on her tape,
We go from there so Mister Broffy alleges the cover art went against everything he stood for he had a tempted to contact Marty Beast team prior to filing suit,
Pan out obviously and so they go to trial and have a jury decision and against Cardi B and say she's not liable or they,
Cases against her
Mister Brophy's face was never shown.
Mixtape was an African American, mister Brophy is a white man with a shape, head, there was no way to a dinner if I broke the plane up in this case, and so he loses,
Use of his likeness. On the tape even though
Hey perhaps these were very dental file tattoos but different it's not the tattoo artist bringing the claim right
Here it was yup this guy braffy was claiming that the tattoo was such an a distinctive part of his identity that it was essentially,
Portraying him even though he's a white man.
[26:40] Model on the,
It was just down to well that's my tattoo so that reflects on me.
[26:55] Well, it would be a little bit different standard. We're gonna talk about that if he was famous or he was someone in the, you know, the public. I, that there could have been a greater connection.
[27:07] But you know, that's not the facts we have here. Well, and and in a copyright.
In in a tattoo copyright scenario we have seen,
A tattoo that originated on a black man
That's right.
And there was a bruh aha about that that's a lot quite a while ago now but you know so it's not unheard of to have a cross race issue around this kind of thing
But here the jury said yeah but that's not identifying you.
He was a good sport about her apparently after the after the.
[27:47] Music.
[27:54] In an interview said something along the lines of well I couldn't have just let it go I had to,
Accepting.
Because that is on Mike Tyson's face,
Hey you know I I'm assuming mister Brophy there's times when he has a shirt on we're not seeing his back.
I think that's a little bit of a distinction. I guess in the Tyson case they settle. We didn't get a decision.
On that.
[28:37] And it was such a key and classic. Part of that movie. Yeah.
[28:51] I wonder what would have happened if the tattoo artist had been the one,
Is a theoretically possible that this tattoo artist who did this.
Type vertical. Yes.
Registration.
Hey Facebook.
And i don't think there was any transformation just you took it off of.
Yeah hey light background and put it onto a dark background,
Yeah.
I think that's it. That's an interesting kind of kinda case there to to think about. Might it really.
Be something that tattoo artist could really pursue.
So.
[30:13] I think he is now. Well, you know, in the air but I know that's not the standard. The question was, was he a public figure when all of?
I'm sure he felt like his life was falling apart around him what's going on I mean he was nominated for the attorney general of the United States he he was,
Wasn't he the.
No he was a supreme court justice in Alabama.
Well, he was, was he nominated? So, sorry, in 2000.
Jeff's sessions was,
Right Roy Moore was nominated by the Republican Party to take Jeff's session send it to me.
[31:07] You know
So amidst the campaigning for that special election in 2017 to fill the seat that was vacated when Jeff Sessions
The Washington post ranus
Right there. Detailing the experiences of several women who alleged that more had sought out relationships with them when they were teenagers
And that article said that Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working at as a Santa's helper at the Gadsden Alabama Mall when more first approached her and 16 when he asked her on dates with which her mother forbid
The New American Journal published a story a few days later that noted,
Sources tell me more was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior
Soliciting sex from young girls.
Publish a story about the same time stating that Wendy Miller told the post that she was 14 and working as sad as.
[32:10] Music.
[32:31] TV ads against tomorrow,
And the ads just to post the following phrases on this
Want to he approached was 14 and working as a santa's helper
When I was another one referencing the AL. Com,
The senate majority project and a number of other entities in federal court alleging that he was due famed.
He argued that the.
The two quotes were themselves factually accurate and did not.
And we're not intended to suggest the Miller was one of the women more suggested.
Date the defense argued that regardless of the gist of the statements was true
So, the jury, go ahead. Will you say something?
[33:41] The verdict no just the jury,
In a pre-trial ruling. But following the trial, the jury found in favor of more.
[33:59] 2 million in damages.
That the Democratic super pack SMP.
[34:07] The jury determined sorry that SMP made a false and definatory statement about more that also placed him in a false light in the public eye
The pack plans on appealing this so I guess the question is why is
This decision important,
Is he a public figure which according to,
Start times be sullivan right? Yeah. You know we I'd have a showing of actual malice for a public figure to prove defamation.
What's the standard actual malice's present when the publisher of the information had.
Removing this standard wood make it easier and,
For public figures to sue over comments. My others. And so I guess,
My question is are we gonna remove the standard for public figures,
Is this what this case is doing?
Sullivan doesn't apply.
[35:29] You know.
Yeah not following president.
[35:40] Music.
[35:47] Of distinction.
I would like.
It could be important also this case regarding advertising.
Yeah.
You know I think it would be crazy these days to rely on any quote from any other source without verifying
Yeah. Before you republish the quote.
Of these quotes allowed the jury to.
Yeah, you know, so.
Accurate quote makes you immune from liability isn't quite right but I don't think that overcomes the the need for the actual malice when the when the planet is.
[37:06] I mean truth is going to set you free.
In any situation?
Well and it's this tenious line that yes the two statements were true.
That was one of the ones he approached for episode.
Well, let me see.
[37:45] The defense.
Yeah I don't know. Probably at an assertion that were these statements true standing alone and they and then defensive starts. They clearly were not true. When combined together.
Yes.
Yeah, I don't know. This is troubling. I I certainly hope that we see an appeal and and there's some clarification about when does this
Back from actual malice standard apply and,
Yeah. You know, I think they will appeal simply for the,
They wanted to give him an award for this.
I'm troubled.
[39:04] Yeah.
You would think.
In sequence and just. You know, had.
[39:24] Music.
[39:33] What about a week ago at this period? 2 weeks ago at the Supreme Court. That we've been following for a long time. And we're looking forward to.
The ruling in the case of Andy Warhall Foundation versus Goldsmith,
Just do a review.
Hey it's a copyright dispute over a photograph of the musician prints
If that image was licensed by vanity fair for use as an artist reference. For an illustration that was gonna accompany a profile,
Of prints that they were running back in 1984. So he'd now become a superstar purple rain had come out and he was becoming a big fit a big figure in the industry.
[40:31] Music.
[40:41] Picture as a reference,
One of which was published in the vanity fair article the one known as the purple prints and you know we all know the warhole style of the silk screen image on it
On a canvas with a colorful background and it becomes much more monitored but you know, it's.
[41:05] It's narrow down to just black and white. No shades are great. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. And,
And so Warhawk does this thing and it appears it was published in the vanity for article
And later one of these images the one known as orange prints
After Prince died in 26 it's really 2016 it's really that long ago,
Of her copyright and the Andy Warhol find it foundation filed a preemptive suit to declare the entire 16 image series,
Was fair use undercopy law because war hall had transformed Goldsmith's photo into a new series of work,
With a different meaning and message.
Of the photo is truly transformative,
To lose.
[42:19] Goldsmith are used on the contrary that while war home may have been a creative superstar who impured others people's art with his own distinctive style,
Even Warhol followed the rules and when he didn't take a particular picture he would usually still pay the photographer who did. And the foundation simply failed to do that in this situation.
So the oral arguments
The justice's questions try to stick to that line of thinking didn't wanna wander off into a critique of art.
Taking the goldsmith photo and putting a smile on Prince's face. These are the the messages prince can be happy. Prince should be happy. Is that enough of the transformation.
The message is different. Foundations as well that would depend on the degree of the transformation in meaning or message.
Number of the questions concerned book to movie.
Which generally involve licensing.
You know book to movie.
Is your answer then just well yeah it's a new meaning or message it's transformative so all that matters is,
This was from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
[43:48] Just as Kagan asks there may be nothing left to the original author for driven at works and he'd we expect Hollywood when it takes a book and make some movie to pay the author of the book,
But i think movie makers might be surprised that the notion that what they do is of transformative,
I mean, mostly movies are tons of new dialogue plot points settings, characters, themes, you would think that it amounts to new meaning and message under the test of the hall foundation is proposing. So, why is it that we can't imagine,
That Hollywood could just take a book and a movie and make a movie out of it without paint.
Hey Facebook,
I mean there's,
The original message in order to make that happen.
[44:42] But maybe that's the nature and the purpose,
It seems like the war hall through the fair used factors. I mean, this is,
Approach is to elevate transformativeness above all of the other forth but all of the other factors that might be considered at a fair use discussion and say look if it's transformative none of the rest matters.
Which I'm going with the two justices and their line of thinking,
There is hardly any art for more transformative than.
But we would are weak going to a place where we're not gonna get a license for that and secure those rights. I don't think so.
Well.
[45:38] Music.
[45:47] About judges not being art critics what was the point.
And.
[45:59] Yeah and so. That's true. Yeah. And then even you could ask five art critics and they would give you different answers.
Because there are critic. It's subjective.
[46:11] So another factor that they've the justices had to consider is the purpose of both works,
Excuse me, the the, yeah, the nature of the, excuse me.
Person character of the infringing work and factor two is the nature of the original. So, you know, they look at what the the images created by wall hall were for commercial licensing for publication
Goldsmith original was intended to pride an accurate representation of how Prince,
Non representative attributes of war holes depiction emphasizing if you really want to know what prince looks like he doesn't have that one eye that's darker than the other and the head doesn't float in the air as it does.
And according to Chief Justice Roberts Warhall sends a message about the deep personalization of modern
One is the commentary on modern society the other to show what prints looks like so that sort of also I guess the discussion of the trans one,
In a sense. So pretty hard to tell which way this is going based on the questions. Being asked.
[47:37] Merely,
Is often a matter of what's been postured in the pleadings. Yes.
[48:14] You know it's gonna be different from one.
What's the word I'm looking for from one
Hey Facebook
Then that's enough of a transformation.
Yes.
Orange image.
[48:56] Everybody.
So that's interesting. Yeah. I did not look at the case to know.
Did the did war hollow or the warhawk foundation file a copyright application?
Oh, interesting. Or his new works. Yeah.
[49:27] They should. Hey Facebook.
Yeah but so is is declaring something to be a derivative work.
Essentially acknowledging that it's not fair use.
Because by nature it is a derivative work it continues the,
Well, I guess there could be doubt. We talked about this with the top gun case. Last month, before last that the person who wrote the first article,
Is the top gun Maverick movie a derivative work of his article.
Hey that's another case that's gonna be I think.
[50:22] Yeah I I don't know. I don't remember. Well I mean it it does strike me that.
Wow,
I think you acknowledge that there's a portion of your work that's not protectable by your copyright registration. So, if I do it my adaptation of Romeo and Juliet do I have to check the box and.
[50:58] I think you do.
[51:11] Is it
Romeo and Juliette ask movies that were you know teeny bopper,
West side story. Well, yeah.
[51:39] Music.
[51:48] Sort of just something we.
[52:01] Music.
[52:25] So the case is Davis versus Colorane.
[52:35] The six circuit held that Davis,
I think we've got the these facts back. So, let's do Davis. Carrie Davis is a is very vocal about this township's board of trustees and police. And she usually provides her critiques in two different ways. One by oral comments and board meetings
And the second by written comments on the
One incident occurred at a board meeting which Davis was told that she could not speak disrespectfully and another when she stated our firefighters and police officers they don't have bachelor's degrees but they're certifications.
So that some weeks later the chief of police made a post stating recently a citizen commented the most of our offers don't have college degrees,
Davis claimed that this post red misrepresented her statement and that others began ridiculing her this citizen. So David's uploaded her video,
Showing the context and included a comment.
[53:41] And she led that the video received likes from the public but the next day the video on the comment will taken off.
[53:56] Past in 2010 stating that condescending comments would not be tolerated and the speakers should show respect to the board.
The department reserve the right to remove any comments or reviews that are inappropriate or offensive,
Including comments that express,
So the policeman's departments two different rules on the Facebook,
So the just record granted summer judgement in favor of the township the court also held that the rules comported with a constitution since the comment section of the Facebook page and the,
The court rejected Davis' contention that the rules were over broad and vague.
And found that the rule barring disrespectful speech wasn't applied.
Requirement for the Facebook rule challenge and that the meeting rule was recently appealed which makes her case moot.
[55:18] The standing analysis Davis is looking for retrospective relief for past injury. Damages for the reported removal of her video from the Facebook page,
And in junction and declaring tour judgement against any application of the Facebook rule to her future speech,
On the pasta injury she can't satisfy causation because the injury isn't fairly traceable to the Facebook rule.
It was caused by the no videos rule but instead the challenges
And she needs to show that there's certainty a certainly impending,
Fills on that.
You didn't get far enough to get into that.
That barred the disrespect. Unanimously voting on the amendment,
In a formal legislative like meeting.
[56:43] Music.
[56:52] That looked like the Parma Police Department's page.
It was similar in luck but it had jokes and and.
Weird headlines and tonight remarks and things like that. So, he was arrested and charged with a state crime of interfering with the police department's activities,
He was acquitted on those charges and then he filed a civil rights suit claiming that his constitutional rights were violated.
Supporting,
And in fact,
Announcing it to parody sort of deflates the the value,
And anyway so the main reason I wanted to mention that is that it's a it's a fun read the brief itself so we'll link to that. Yeah.
But I also what concerns me though is I can appreciate security and how parity should be protected.
But not when it comes to.
[58:15] You know what if you know worst case scenario someone is in a terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible situation and the only access they have to try and get there.
Cry for help out is through facebook and they go to his parody Facebook page.
I I don't think you get to pretend to be the police.
So the stripper shouldn't wear police uniform to go to the party just to do the you know I mean.
That you.
I think it is different on social media.
[59:10] Okay so let's say somebody decides to be me on Facebook.
[59:21] I don't know. I but I think it's different with the police. I I think there's a difference.
Yeah. Speeches speech.
[59:32] Music.
[59:44] Wasn't inciting violence kind of speech. It was a it was making jokes about this police department which.
[59:58] It seems to me that this is exactly what the first amendment,
Is about is we should be able to make fun of the police department. We should be able to tell jokes and so,
And the onions argument is but then it's not the same speech. We're making it's a different.
Impact.
Governmental entities. Yeah.
And so,
Yeah. These various cases and hopefully they'll give us a clear path.
Yeah.
That it's,
You know,
Just ridiculous things on that. No real police department would ever have on their website. And so.
[1:01:19] Music.
[1:01:28] Able to avail itself of police services I think
Do you have to put a big bright banner on the top of this the screen in order to one people you know,
Hey
Maybe we can get along
Comedians being arrested I'm obscenity chart you know things like that you go back to Letty Bruce and George Carlin and you know those folks.
The first.
[1:02:26] Development of first imagers prudence. And so this will be interesting to watch.
Being interesting or argument to attend,
So
I don't have the current stats in front of me about how long it's taking for applications, initial application reviews to be. Yeah. It's a good 9 month.
Before they're being reviewed in,
Office actions.
[1:03:31] Up until December
Ending applications you'll still have 6 months to respond December 3 it changes to having 3 months to respond to your office,
You need that extra 3 months but you're gonna pay $125.
To receive that. So, and this is really important. My whole time of being a lawyer, it's been a 6 month,
Yeah.
But now we've got a really reset we've actually myself and my assistant have already redesigned our,
Workflow
Hey
Any of you, there's no waiting to day 80. I don't think before you talk to your client or you're gonna be a big trouble to remind me this week. Deadlines,
Yeah. So, just a practice pointer out there. So, what?
[1:04:52] Oh I'm just gonna say I wonder if examiners.
Hey.
[1:05:04] Well, you're suspicious
Reporting responsibilities they'll they'll get scrutinized if they're not releasing them as fast as they you know within a certain amount of time after their,
Assigned vacations on the the backlog seems to be in just being assigned to an examiner.
My experiences once the examiner has it I get AA response of some sort.
[1:05:40] Hey Facebook I think that's right I'm looking at some things that were filed in February that's of 2020
Post my own
An eye on that. You know, we're going all the way back to February. I think I have at least one that was filed,
In the middle of 2021 that's still I don't have any assignment now I've been chasing after it and trying to get answers
Even in post registration filings what I have found on those you can seem to call and get a person on the phone. Yeah.
And they will get it reviewed but for newest assignments there doesn't seem to be anything to speed it up so that's sad the trademark office is gonna be speeding us up
That's exactly right.
Change your workflows lawyers so that you are set up for a 3 month response period instead of a 6 months response period.
[1:06:44] To those office sections that are coming out,
Practice pointer for sure. But we wanna take a moment to thank you our loyal listeners for spending your time with us and
At Gmail. Com or visit our website at entertainment law update. Com
Click on that and record your voice and we love to play those things on the air when we get them.
Law update.
[1:07:24] Yeah did you enjoy it as always super fun we'll see if you guys actually see our faces but you'll definitely hear our voices for our under 50
E R A B E N N E T T T been@law. Com or create project. Com or take you to my website
Had a blast. Thank you so much.
I'm Gordon Firemark from Los Angeles and my website is@Firemark. Com. Email address. G firemark. Firemark. Com. We'll get to me. And on most social media websites. G firemark is my handle.
Let's see big thank you to our crack team of volunteer contributors managing editor John Genesic,
Malharosa charles thorn markman carnell wilson. And David Tobis all helped. Contributed to this episode. And we are actually looking for some new people to join our family. Contributors. So please reach out to us. Entertainment law. Update at Gmail
Dot com is the.
[1:08:29] Music.